It's Sony, Not AMD in GeForce Titan's Crosshair

That PC Alliance should have done it's job in promoting some standards and quality in the first place.

Click to expand...

PC already has standards (OpenGL, Direct3D), but the quality of drivers is not up to par. Making tweaks for games shouldn't be necessary if their software was properly defined and their internals well done, but you know, they also want people to partner with AMD or NVIDIA, not both, so doing nasty things on purpose is also something to take into account.

Doesn't the PlayStation 4, Wii U, and next Xbox all have an AMD GPU? NVIDIA is literally only competing in the computer market so they have to hit hard. Makes sense why NVIDIA would launch a monster--their revenue stream is in danger of drying up.

Click to expand...

Hardly drying up. They're killing in the mobile market with Tegra. A lot of the GPU development information gets fed into that program as well. They're also still performing well in the desktop GPU market.

If anything, nVidia is in a much stronger position now than they've ever been in the past.

I think the new consoles will have more in game physics effects with all those cpu cores... So much for Physx Nvidia

With Sony and MS both looking for 60fps @ 1080p (well they should be!) and with consoles using similar hardware to PCs (more than before) we should in theory see more better looking ports but how they will play and perform on PC in terms of the quality of the ports remains to be seen.

As DX9 was the previous standard for consoles, does anyone know if the next gen console games will be developed using DX10 or DX11 etc?

As both new consoles will use Bluray, will this mark the end of DVD games as a format on PC too? (I know there are other factors like digital distribution too).

Yea kinda sucked for xbox and PS3 users to get such hardware failure. I still have my original SNES and N64 while they have had quadruple the game time on them as xbox/PS3 have been released. Factors that came into play with xbox/ps3 was the low heat point LEADFREE solder.

PC already has standards (OpenGL, Direct3D), but the quality of drivers is not up to par. Making tweaks for games shouldn't be necessary if their software was properly defined and their internals well done, but you know, they also want people to partner with AMD or NVIDIA, not both, so doing nasty things on purpose is also something to take into account.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about optimizations for multi-core CPUs, DX10/10.1/11/11.1, on every game those partner companies launch. I'm talking about working with other devs in order to implement more features for the PC crowd, to make a PC first and then port it to consoles. I'm talking about GPU accelerated physics and AI and so the list goes on.

Anyone else find it odd that an Analyst believes they are going to render games at 240 FPS, where current PC games render 30/60FPS? All that with an APU.

I don't think this analyst is worth his weight in horse manure.

Click to expand...

I render BF3 well above 60fps. Problem is my monitor. If you can get a 240Mhz monitor/TV I could run Quake 3 all day at 240 FPS. I think it all depends on the game and monitor because even current APU's can do that. They are not saying the PS4 will run BF4 at 240 FPS. They are just saying it can run SOMETHING at 240 FPS.

FYI Carmack already said next gen consoles are staying at the 30FPS cap in most circumstances so that "analyst" is playing with semantics......or is just a retard.

Only breakthrough they made there is because of the Nexus 7, and all the OS/software optimizations and tweaks that came with.

Well, I remember the rumored pricing on AMD's HD 8800s cards, and the speculation that they would outperform any of the current gen (pre-Titan) single GPUs. And I'm pretty sure a pair of R8870s would demolish the GK110... for what? $560?

You're all forgetting that games written for consoles are done in assembly as much as possible. The one strength of a console is it's uniformity. There's only one possible choice of hardware, so you don't go through drivers and unknowns, but code directly for well-known hardware, shedding some pretty significant overhead and inefficiency.

A well-executed APU with shared GPU and CPU cache could be a rather potent tool in the hands of a skilled coder. Having an engine that never fetches GPU instructions and mesh data from RAM, only using it for immediately needed variables for final rendering, and only looking in VRAM for raw texture data would mean it executes an order of magnitude faster than a typical Direct3D title. Add a bit of driverless low-level access to all registers and shaders, and you have a machine that could very well render at 120 FPS constant. 240, I'm not sure about, but I suppose it's doable...

You're all forgetting that games written for consoles are done in assembly as much as possible. The one strength of a console is it's uniformity. There's only one possible choice of hardware, so you don't go through drivers and unknowns, but code directly for well-known hardware, shedding some pretty significant overhead and inefficiency.

A well-executed APU with shared GPU and CPU cache could be a rather potent tool in the hands of a skilled coder. Having an engine that never fetches GPU instructions and mesh data from RAM, only using it for immediately needed variables for final rendering, and only looking in VRAM for raw texture data would mean it executes an order of magnitude faster than a typical Direct3D title. Add a bit of driverless low-level access to all registers and shaders, and you have a machine that could very well render at 120 FPS constant. 240, I'm not sure about, but I suppose it's doable...

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter how optimize the code is if the hardware isn't there to push it. APU's are damn nice but they are still APU's and cannot hold a candle to a current mid-range dedicated GPU. Cannot substitute horsepower with skill.

What gets me is the sleight of hand that nvidia did to increase the price of graphics cards by pitching the mid range chip of the next generation architecture (Kepler) as a top end product (GTX 680) instead of something like GTX 660 where it belongs, simply because it beat the GTX 580. In contrast, the previous generation Fermi GPU in the GTX 580 is a true top end chip.

Thus, we've paid top dollar for a mid range card, pushing up the price of the true top GPU to stratospheric levels.

And that really sucks for us. If you don't feel resentment towards nvidia for doing this, then you should.

What gets me is the sleight of hand that nvidia did to increase the price of graphics cards by pitching the mid range chip of the next generation architecture (Kepler) as a top end product (GTX 680) instead of something like GTX 660 where it belongs, simply because it beat the GTX 580. In contrast, the previous generation Fermi GPU in the GTX 580 is a true top end chip.

Thus, we've paid top dollar for a mid range card, pushing up the price of the true top GPU to stratospheric levels.

And that really sucks for us. If you don't feel resentment towards nvidia for doing this, then you should.

Click to expand...

Why? Its called the free market. I remember when people were saying we didn't need AMD or ATI because Intel and NVIDIA would never price gouge due to market demand. Well welcome to the realities of the real world. Market demand is partly driven by competition. This is what happens, and to bash them for it is BS. You would do the SAME THING.

Doesn't matter how optimize the code is if the hardware isn't there to push it. APU's are damn nice but they are still APU's and cannot hold a candle to a current mid-range dedicated GPU. Cannot substitute horsepower with skill.

consoles have the one thing that gamers want that desktops will never have: ease of use.

it takes a lot more time and effort to maintain a desktop where a console is automatic. less parts to fail, less to worry about. flick the switch on and you are gaming.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. If you mostly buy games on Steam, half of the job has already been done. So in the end, all you need to do is update graphic drivers here and there. www.amd.com and www.nvidia.com. Not exactly a complicated thing to do.

You also have to understand that while PC may be more complicated, it's not locked down platform. I can play games that were designed for PC's from 20 years ago on a current modern systems.

Or even patch them yourself. For example Need for Speed 3 game released in 1998, i've patched it myself and you can play it on a brand new 2013 PC pretty much without any hassle. You just slam in CD, run my patch that copies the game files and updates them and voila. Try doing that with a PS2 game on a PS3. Or an Xbox game on a X360.

Developers don't give a toss even though some of us would buy refreshed games (like we did with Serious Sam HD series). But on PC you at least have community patches like my NFS3 patch and hundreds of others. On consoles you can only stick a finger up your bottom because developers don't care and you have no community.

Only breakthrough they made there is because of the Nexus 7, and all the OS/software optimizations and tweaks that came with.

Well, I remember the rumored pricing on AMD's HD 8800s cards, and the speculation that they would outperform any of the current gen (pre-Titan) single GPUs. And I'm pretty sure a pair of R8870s would demolish the GK110... for what? $560?